Daily Republican., 1887-12-14
THIRD EDITION.
s,osrt Yesterday Afternoon.

soart Yesterday Afternoon.
Superior Court resumed procesd iDgs
Mt 3 O'Clock yesterday afternoon with
all the Judges present. A jury wat
drawn and the case Of Mary Qulnby
vs the Delaware Lumber Company
was taken mp for trial with John II
Rodney, Esq for the plaintiff and
Hoffecker & Hoffecker for the defend.
ants.
This is m action TO recover rent nj.
legged 30 be- due for pieoe Of ground oc-
cupted BY the Delaware Lumber Com.
papy. This ground Was leased by the
defendAnts at 81, 200 per year rent, and
suit ts brought 70 recover one quarters
rent from March 2bth. 1885, to June
18th OF the same year.
Edgar ii. Quinby WAS afirmed, and
stated that tns rent had been paid up
TO March 25,h, 1885, bat none since.
On cross-ex xAmination he said that for
two years previous TO March 25th, 1885.
the rent had been paid by Joseph Bel.
lah, who was the treasurer or secretary
Of the Delaware Lumber Company.
The plaintiff rested with this witness
aud j. II. Hoffecker, ESQ.,, made his
opening to the jury for the defendant,
after which he commenced the cxami.
nation OF witnesses.
Lewis r. Springer Was affirmed, and
stated that he was 3 member OF the Del
aware Lzmber Company. The company
organised under the charter few day 8
after the lease Was signed. The lease 10
dated February l6 h. 1888, bat the COM
pAny never occupied the place under
the lease. The witness had no knowl-
edge Of any rent being due or In arrears
until after the Delaware Lumb Com
pany was cold out by Sheriff Martin.
John W. Green wood testified that
part of the year 1888 and '84 he was
book keeper for the Delaware Lum Der
Company. While be was with the
company the rents were paid to Mr..
Q1inby as the landlord. Part OF tue
time It was paid by checks OF the cor.
poration.
EiSard N Moreley was sworn, and
testifie that he Is q member Of the firm
OF Springer, Morley x Cause. He re-
mem bsred when the lease was signed,
bat there Was no demand ever made
upon him for the rent or any part OF It
He never had anything TO do with the
affairs Of the Delaware Lumber Com
pany, ss all that business was trans
acted by Joseph Bellah.
Thomas Il fin :estihed that be is
deputy sheriff. He identified an entry
On the books which showed that the
property OF the Delaware Lumber Com
pany WAS sold by Sheriff Martin for q,
4ls, out OF which .$916 was paid for
rent, due up TO the time OF the sale.
Mr.. Hofecker announced that he
would rest with this witness, and MIR.
Rodney called Albert M. Quiuby In re
butial. He testified that he, as one of
the lessons OF the prope erty, never recoR
nized the Delaware Lumber Company
SO the lessees or the property. He WAS
present at the Sheriff's sale and pro-
tested against the sale OF the lease. On
March 25 1885, Joseph Bellah came to
the witness and offered, In the presenc ce
OF witnesses, to give up the kegs, but as
the Lease had one yanr TO run the wit.
ness refused TO accept 1t.
E1gar ". Qainby was recalled, and
ideatifaed a letter copy book as belong.
ing to him. On March 26. 1888, upon
going to bis office, he found some keys
lying on bis step, which he recognized
~ those Of his tenant. He let them lay
and sent q note to Mr.. Springer, OF
which there is copy In the book. He
Rot some one 10 take caIe of the keys
for the tenant, as he would not have
anything to do with them himself
Hon. Charles b. Lore testified thai
Mr. z linDy came to him and stated
that TO wanted to get his money hui
did not want to recognize the Delaware
Lum Der Company. He advised him &c
make sure CT the money and securoc
1919 for him.
This closed the testimony, ard as II
wanted bus q few minutes OF 6 O'Clock
court took recess until 10 O'clock this
morning.
This MOI nins's session OF court COZ,
yened q, 10 O'clock with the Chief Jus
tice and Associate judges Houston and
Paynter on the bench.
Argument In the case OF Mary
Quinby vs. the Delaware Lum Der Com
pany was commenced oy j. II. Rodney
Esq., for the plaintiff, who nddresse1
the jury for nalf An hour, and was fol
lowed by j. II Hofecker, Esq for the
defen dants. He closed at lilo O'Clock
and vas followed by Mr.. Rodney, who
made brief closing argument TO tn,
jury ior the plaintiff, after which tn,
charge was delivered by the Chief Jus
tice. The jury retired at 1l.45 O'Clock
The case of George Al. Miller va
Samuel Z. Warren was reported as set
tied by counsel.
A jury was drawn and the case o
Charles Perkes vs. Peter J. Ford Wal
taken up for trial with Hoffecker
Hoffecker for the plaintiff. and John
son & Haa 60 for tho defendant. Thu
is case on q contract OF guarantee ii
follows: On May lob, 1888, the de
fendant, Peter j. Ford, requested
Charles Psrkes to cell goods to the frn
of Walsh q Son, and stated that b,
would be responsible for the bill in al
amount not exceeding 5000.
On shis guarantee the goods were fur
nished, and rs Walsh & Son failed t,
pay Tor them. this suit is brought to 10
cover the amount due. Charles Perkes
the plaintiff, is . resident OF Pniladel
phis, doing business In plum bers' sup
plies. Wash & Son were engaged II
the plumb bing and gas fitting bnsines
to obtain credit from Perkes, secures
obtained goods for v hich they failed .
pay, and as they are insolvent, suit /
brought against MT. Ford.
Charles Perkes was sworn, and tssti
hsd that he is engaged in the plum bers
supplies bushes In Philadelphia. Wi
liam Walsh u Son, plumbers OF tbi
otty, wished to open an account wit
him, but 10 he was aware Of their fnar
oiAi ssanding hs declined to let theI
have goods without authority. On Ma
10, 1888, Walsh & Son prese ntsd q wri,
ten guM @ tee from Peter j. Ford, an
on the slreugth OF that he sold thsr
goods until june, 1885.
At a1st time they owed him S410 AN
rs he could not collect 1t. hs obtaine
Judgment against them. He than d.
mAnded the 800, according to tb
guarantee, from Mr.. Ford, but as b
refused TO pay it placed 1t in Mr.. Ho
fecker's hands for collection, and SUI
WAS catered.
.Inhn w McKniahf testified that [